Cochrane · systematic review · CD012940
Re‐feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants
Abiramalatha, T, Thanigainathan, S, Ramaswamy, VV, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 6 · 85.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlySummary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants
Population: preterm infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to regain birth weight (days) Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 59 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Risk of NEC stage ≥ 2 or SIPb,c Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | RR 0.71 [0.25, 2.04] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
All‐cause mortality before hospital discharge Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | RR 0.5 [0.14, 1.85] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Time to establish full enteral feeds (120 mL/kg/d) Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 59 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Number of infants with feed interruption episodes lasting ≥ 12 hours Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | RR 0.8 [0.42, 1.52] | 1 study · 59 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of TPN days Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 59 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Risk of extrauterine growth restriction at discharge Summary of findings table ‐ Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residuals | RR 1.29 [0.38, 4.34] | 1 study · 59 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Re‐feeding compared to discarding gastric residual in preterm infants
Population: preterm infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Time to regain birth weight (days) Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residual | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 59 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Number of infants with necrotising enterocolitis stage 2 or 3 and/or spontaneous intestinal perforation Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residual | RR 0.71 [0.25, 2.04] | 1 study · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number of infants with episodes of interruption of feeds ≥ 12 hours Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residual | RR 0.8 [0.42, 1.52] | 1 study · 59 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mortality before discharge Re‐feeding vs discarding gastric residual | RR 0.5 [0.14, 1.85] | 1 study · 72 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |